October 25, 2021

Volume XI, Number 298

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Place of Business Cannot Be Imputed to Related Companies Who Maintain Corporate Separateness

In Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, No. 2020-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for improper venue.

Andra Group filed suit against several related entities in the Eastern District of Texas.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).  The district court granted the motion to dismiss as to all Defendants except for Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, finding that the remaining defendants did not have a regular and established place of business in the district.

On appeal, Andra argued that the locations of Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC are regular and established places of business for the remaining defendants because employees of Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC acted as their agents, or, alternatively, the remaining defendants ratified the Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC locations as their own place of business.  The Federal Circuit rejected the first argument, finding that none of the remaining defendants exercised sufficient control over Stores’ employees to create an agency relationship.  The Court also rejected Andra’s alternative argument, explaining that “where related companies have maintained corporate separateness, the place of business of one corporation is not imputed to the other for venue purposes.”

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 221
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Daniel M. Jordan IP Lawyer Finnegan Law Firm
Associate

Daniel Jordan focuses on patent prosecution and litigation across the mechanical and electrical arts. He represents clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and various district courts. 

Daniel drafts and prosecutes patent applications for a range of technologies, including hydraulic systems, water treatment, computer networks, cybersecurity, financial services and business systems, and data analysis. He also has experience in numerous aspects of litigation, including pre-litigation investigations, discovery, conducting...

571-203-2471
Caitlin O’Connell Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney Finnegan Law Firm
Associate

Caitlin O’Connell focuses her practice on patent litigation and client counseling in the areas of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, with particular emphasis on Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) cases.

Caitlin is involved in all phases of litigation, including pre-litigation analysis, claim construction, fact discovery, expert discovery, and trial. Caitlin’s litigation experience includes drafting pleadings, preparing fact and corporate witnesses for depositions, coordinating discovery, working with experts to develop infringement and validity positions, preparing expert...

202 408 4004
Elizabeth Ferrill Patent Attorney Finnegan Law Firm
Partner

Elizabeth Ferrill is an “undisputed expert on design patents” who is “always updated and enlightening others with her deep knowledge,” “very involved in the design bar,” and “gives her clients an outstanding service” as noted in Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000. She focuses her practice on all aspects of design patents, including prosecution, counseling, post-grant, and litigation.

Elizabeth counsels clients who hold design patents as well as those accused of infringement. She has experience with design patents related to consumer and industrial products, medical...

202 408 4445
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement